IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AT AMARILLO
PANEL E
OCTOBER 31, 2002
______________________________
IN RE TOMMIE J. DENSON _________________________________
Before REAVIS and JOHNSON, JJ., and BOYD, S.J. (1)
Relator Tommie J. Denson seeks a writ of mandamus. The person against whom the writ is sought is not specified, although relator's petition listing the State of Texas as Appellee references the Honorable Ebelardo Lopez, Judge of the 108th District Court of Potter County, and also references a motion relator alleges he made in regard to post-conviction DNA testing. We deny the petition.
On October 28, 2002, relator filed with the clerk of this court a pleading entitled Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Relator alleges that he has filed a request for post-conviction DNA testing and that the request was denied. We are requested to issue a writ of mandamus, although the person against whom we are requested to issue the writ is not specified.
In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, relator attached no documentation. For example, no copy of a judgment of conviction or motion for DNA testing is attached. When petition for writ of mandamus is made, it is the relator's burden to show entitlement to the relief being requested. See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). Relator must file with the petition a certified sworn copy of every document that is material to relator's claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding, and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding including any exhibits offered in evidence or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained of. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a).
Relator's petition contains only allegations. Certified, sworn copies of motions and correspondence referenced in the petition are not attached or furnished, nor is any other document or transcript. Relator has not presented a record which shows entitlement to the relief sought, or upon which we are authorized to act.
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
Phil Johnson
Justice
Do not publish.
1. John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment.
isclosing that appellant knew of his duty to comply with the statute and initially informed the authorities that his address was 978 Lucky. This was the home of his sister, with whom he allegedly resided after leaving prison. That he so resided there was re-confirmed by him in April of 2000. However, appearing of record is testimony of a police officer with the Houston Police Department disclosing that, during April and May of 2000, she attempted to contact appellant at the address on six occasions, without success. Other evidence disclosed that 1) appellant's sister moved from the locale, 2) a third-party moved into the abode located at 978 Lucky in February 2000, 3) according to this new tenant, appellant had not resided there since she moved in, 4) this new tenant also disclaimed knowing appellant, 5) appellant had not lived with his sister for over 70 days, and 6) appellant, after discovering that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, contacted law enforcement officials in the Summer of 2000 and provided them with a new address.
The foregoing constitutes some evidence upon which a rational jury could conclude, beyond reasonable doubt, that appellant intentionally and knowingly failed to register as required by art. 62.04(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. And, though other evidence contradicted that mentioned above, including appellant's own testimony that he continued to reside at 978 Lucky though he also stayed with his girlfriend at another locale, the contradictory evidence merely created questions of fact for the jury to decide. It did not render the jury's verdict clearly wrong or manifestly unjust.
Accordingly, we overrule appellant's contentions and affirm the judgment.
Brian Quinn
Justice
Do Not Publish.